Constitutional Monarchy

[JudgeRightly]

I agree that such record keeping is a terrific idea. History is always valuable to record and to remember. That alone makes this a good idea.

Would you say that such a requirement for the king as outlined in my previous posts would lessen or perhaps eliminate the need for there to be a method for the king's removal?

I ask because if a king is going to be so wicked that he ignores such directives, he's probably going to ignore any sort removal system for such a wicked king, and have those conspiring against him removed or perhaps killed.

 

[Clete]

Would you say that such a requirement for the king as outlined in my previous posts would lessen or perhaps eliminate the need for there to be a method for the king's removal?

How could it?

The king can lie and even if he didn't, if he can't ever be removed from the throne, why would he care whether it's required or not? Maybe he decides just to blow off writing any records of any kind. Who's going to do anything about it?

I ask because if a king is going to be so wicked that he ignores such directives, he's probably going to ignore any sort removal system for such a wicked king, and have those conspiring against him removed or perhaps killed.

Well, he would be able to ignore the removal system. The removal system would have to have some sort of teeth to it or it would be useless. The flow of authority throughout the government would have to be set up in such a way that both the military and police forces would enforce the law, not the king's whims and if the king was lawfully removed then they would enforce that ruling just like they'd enforce any other law.

 

[Clete]

A Proposed Monarch Removal Mechanism:

One of the most pressing concerns I have regarding the proposed constitutional monarchy is the absence of any mechanism to remove a rogue king. This is not a mere theoretical issue, but a critical flaw that could doom the entire system. While the proposal is designed to align with biblical principles of justice and governance, it overlooks a fundamental distinction between ancient Israel and any modern nation attempting to implement such a structure.

Israel operated under a unique covenantal relationship with God. When Israel’s kings strayed too far from justice, God Himself would intervene. Saul, for example, was removed by divine decree, and David was chosen to replace him. Even later kings who defied God’s law, such as Ahab or Manasseh, faced divine judgment, whether through prophetic condemnation, foreign invasion, or direct punishment from God. This newly proposed nation would not have that same divine safeguard. There would be no divine promise ensuring that God would directly remove an unjust ruler. Therefore, without a clear and enforceable process for removing a king who violates the law, the system invites tyranny.

The arguments, to this point, against a removal mechanism have been that it would only introduce something else that was “above the law,” and only achieve the undermining of the king’s authority, but this is not what such a mechanism would be. Those who remove a king for violating the law would not be placing themselves above the law, they'd be enforcing it! The king’s authority is derived from the law itself. If he systematically ignores or violates that law, then he has undermined his own legitimacy and thereby usurped his own authority.

A biblically consistent removal mechanism must, therefore, be built into the system, and the most natural way to do this is through the existing judicial structure. Judges already serve as the enforcers of justice within their respective jurisdictions, ensuring that laws are applied consistently. If a judge can be held legally accountable for malfeasance or neglect, why should the king not also be held accountable by the law?

A structured process of escalation within the judicial system would ensure that accusations against the king are neither frivolous nor ignored. If a judge over tens believes the king has violated the law, he may present his concern to a judge over fifties. If the judge over fifties finds the concern credible, he refers it to the next level. This pattern continues until the matter reaches a judge over hundreds of thousands. Only when a judge at this higher level concurs does the issue move forward as a formal charge against the king. At this stage, the case is heard by a panel composed of the highest-ranking judges in the land (i.e. those just beneath the king in authority - judges of millions, perhaps). This panel presides over a trial, ensuring that the king receives due process while also maintaining the integrity of the law.

The legal process would function as follows: Once the higher-level judge confirms the legitimacy of the charge, a formal indictment is issued, and a trial is convened. The panel of top judges serves as both jury and arbiter, with each judge weighing the evidence and arguments presented. The biblical standard of justice requires the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish any matter, and the same would apply to the king. If the judges collectively determine that the king has violated the constitution or criminal law in a manner warranting removal, the judgment is made and enforced by the same means as any other judgment to include the military if need be. Once the king is removed then a successor is appointed in accordance with the constitutional provisions.

Further, there is one additional tweak that I think the propose constitution needs. For the judiciary to function properly in this role, it must derive its authority from the constitution itself rather than serving at the pleasure of the king. If judges serve only at the king’s will, then they lack the independence necessary to hold him accountable. The law, not the king, must be the ultimate authority. This ensures that justice is upheld even against the highest ruler in the land.

Without such a mechanism, history teaches us what will happen. A wicked king who refuses to follow the law will purge his opposition, removing those who stand for justice. Over time, such a system will become corrupt and oppressive, as those willing to defy tyranny will be eliminated from society. Without a covenantal guarantee that God Himself will intervene, there must be a means for the law to be upheld against even the highest authority in the land.

A nation built on biblical principles must take seriously both justice and accountability. To ignore this necessity is to set up a system doomed to eventual failure. If the proposed constitution is to be a viable foundation for a just and enduring nation, then it must recognize the reality of human fallibility and ensure that even the king is subject to the law he is sworn to uphold.

 

[Clete]

Does anyone have a copy of the proposed code of use and criminal code?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Does anyone have a copy of the proposed code of use and criminal code?

Criminal code is at https://kgov.com/criminal-code

A Code of Use was never published, afaik, I asked Bob about it and He gave me a folder of stuff that he had, but there's not a whole lot in it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Criminal code is at https://kgov.com/criminal-code

The Code of Use was never published, afaik, I asked Bob about it and He gave me a folder of stuff that he had, but there's not a whole lot in it.

It seems like he wanted to investigate putting one together, but given how busy he was, I'm not surprised that he never got around to it.

@Dominic Enyart are you aware of anything other than the notes he had on the code of use?

All I have from him was last modified in 2018:

 

[Clete]

A Biblical System for Appointing Judges:

A natural question arises from my previous post on the role of the judiciary in a constitutional monarchy.
If judges are to derive their authority directly from the constitution rather than from the king, how then would they be appointed and on what biblical basis would such a process be established?

The answer lies in the very structure laid out in the biblical system of governance. Exodus 18:21-22 records Moses’ instructions to appoint judges over groups of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 1:13-16, the people were told to choose wise and understanding men from among themselves, and Moses would set them over the people as judges. This reveals a bottom-up method of judicial selection; one that is merit based, decentralized, and insulated from the king's control.

Judges would be chosen from within their own ranks at each level of authority. The process would work as follows:

1. Judges over tens would be appointed locally, selected by the people under their jurisdiction. These would be the most grassroots-level judges, handling the most immediate disputes.
2. Judges over fifties would be chosen from among the judges of tens, promoted by their peers. Once selected, they would be replaced in their former role by another judge of tens and chosen in the regular manner.
3. Judges over hundreds would be chosen from among the judges over fifties, again through peer selection. This pattern would continue at each level.
4. Judges over thousands would be chosen from among the judges over hundreds, ensuring that only those with demonstrated wisdom and experience would rise to the highest levels of judicial authority.
5. Judges over millions (if the population necessitated it) would be chosen in the same way, following the biblical pattern of increasing the level of authority by roughly a factor of ten. In a nation the size of the United States, there would likely be only three or four such judges, ensuring a manageable and functional judicial hierarchy.

This system ensures that those who rise in judicial authority are not appointed by a king or a political body but by their peers, those who best understand the demands of the position and who can recognize wisdom, justice, and integrity in their colleagues. This method also prevents a central authority from manipulating the judiciary for its own purposes.

Furthermore, this approach ensures accountability. Since each judge at every level is chosen from below, any failure or corruption can be swiftly addressed by the very people who elevated him. A judge who fails to uphold the law will lose the confidence of his fellow judges and can be removed, just as he was appointed.

This is, in every way, a superior alternative to the flawed and corruptible systems of judicial appointment used in modern governments. It remains consistent with biblical precedent, ensures impartiality, and preserves the judiciary’s independence from both the executive and the populace. If a judicial system is to function properly within a constitutional monarchy, it must rest upon the authority of the law itself, not the whims of a ruler or the fickleness of elections. The biblical model provides exactly this kind of foundation.

As for the king's role in seating judges, it should be similar to Moses' role in Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1. Not as the sole appointer but as the final confirmer of the judges selected through the structured process. Moses instructed the people to choose wise and capable men, but he retained the authority to approve their selections. This suggests a model in which the king ensures that the process remains just and that those appointed meet the necessary qualifications.

In practical terms, the king would:

1. Oversee the Process: Ensuring that the selection process is carried out fairly and in accordance with the law.
2. Confirm Appointments: Reviewing the selections to ensure they align with constitutional and biblical principles, much as Moses affirmed the choices presented by the people.
3. Act as a Final Check: If corruption or partisanship taints the selection process, the king could reject unqualified candidates and require a new selection.

 

[Bladerunner]

A Proposed Monarch Removal Mechanism:

One of the most pressing concerns I have regarding the proposed constitutional monarchy is the absence of any mechanism to remove a rogue king. This is not a mere theoretical issue, but a critical flaw that could doom the entire system. While the proposal is designed to align with biblical principles of justice and governance, it overlooks a fundamental distinction between ancient Israel and any modern nation attempting to implement such a structure.

Israel operated under a unique covenantal relationship with God. When Israel’s kings strayed too far from justice, God Himself would intervene. Saul, for example, was removed by divine decree, and David was chosen to replace him. Even later kings who defied God’s law, such as Ahab or Manasseh, faced divine judgment, whether through prophetic condemnation, foreign invasion, or direct punishment from God. This newly proposed nation would not have that same divine safeguard. There would be no divine promise ensuring that God would directly remove an unjust ruler. Therefore, without a clear and enforceable process for removing a king who violates the law, the system invites tyranny.

The arguments, to this point, against a removal mechanism have been that it would only introduce something else that was “above the law,” and only achieve the undermining of the king’s authority, but this is not what such a mechanism would be. Those who remove a king for violating the law would not be placing themselves above the law, they'd be enforcing it! The king’s authority is derived from the law itself. If he systematically ignores or violates that law, then he has undermined his own legitimacy and thereby usurped his own authority.

A biblically consistent removal mechanism must, therefore, be built into the system, and the most natural way to do this is through the existing judicial structure. Judges already serve as the enforcers of justice within their respective jurisdictions, ensuring that laws are applied consistently. If a judge can be held legally accountable for malfeasance or neglect, why should the king not also be held accountable by the law?

A structured process of escalation within the judicial system would ensure that accusations against the king are neither frivolous nor ignored. If a judge over tens believes the king has violated the law, he may present his concern to a judge over fifties. If the judge over fifties finds the concern credible, he refers it to the next level. This pattern continues until the matter reaches a judge over hundreds of thousands. Only when a judge at this higher level concurs does the issue move forward as a formal charge against the king. At this stage, the case is heard by a panel composed of the highest-ranking judges in the land (i.e. those just beneath the king in authority - judges of millions, perhaps). This panel presides over a trial, ensuring that the king receives due process while also maintaining the integrity of the law.

The legal process would function as follows: Once the higher-level judge confirms the legitimacy of the charge, a formal indictment is issued, and a trial is convened. The panel of top judges serves as both jury and arbiter, with each judge weighing the evidence and arguments presented. The biblical standard of justice requires the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish any matter, and the same would apply to the king. If the judges collectively determine that the king has violated the constitution or criminal law in a manner warranting removal, the judgment is made and enforced by the same means as any other judgment to include the military if need be. Once the king is removed then a successor is appointed in accordance with the constitutional provisions.

Further, there is one additional tweak that I think the propose constitution needs. For the judiciary to function properly in this role, it must derive its authority from the constitution itself rather than serving at the pleasure of the king. If judges serve only at the king’s will, then they lack the independence necessary to hold him accountable. The law, not the king, must be the ultimate authority. This ensures that justice is upheld even against the highest ruler in the land.

Without such a mechanism, history teaches us what will happen. A wicked king who refuses to follow the law will purge his opposition, removing those who stand for justice. Over time, such a system will become corrupt and oppressive, as those willing to defy tyranny will be eliminated from society. Without a covenantal guarantee that God Himself will intervene, there must be a means for the law to be upheld against even the highest authority in the land.

A nation built on biblical principles must take seriously both justice and accountability. To ignore this necessity is to set up a system doomed to eventual failure. If the proposed constitution is to be a viable foundation for a just and enduring nation, then it must recognize the reality of human fallibility and ensure that even the king is subject to the law he is sworn to uphold.

God is in control and Yes as you say, He is the king maker, in the OT times and in our times as well...

 

[Right Divider]

God is in control and Yes as you say, He is the king maker, in the OT times and in our times as well...

You think that God picked Hitler?

 

[Clete]

God is in control and Yes as you say, He is the king maker, in the OT times and in our times as well...

False.

 

[Bladerunner]

You think that God: picked Hitler?

did He pick Him, Yes and No....for it is in His plan....about 1/3 of the population of the Jews died during this time....In contrast, 2/3 of the population of the Jews will die and only 1/3 of them will live. there are many anti-christs throughout the history of man and many more to come...We are in the days of Mat 24:4-14.

 

[Bladerunner]

False.

Good evening Clete. God placed and/or made sure that many king in history got to where He wanted them to be; including Trump.

 

[Idolater]

A Biblical System for Appointing Judges:

A natural question arises from my previous post on the role of the judiciary in a constitutional monarchy.
If judges are to derive their authority directly from the constitution rather than from the king, how then would they be appointed and on what biblical basis would such a process be established?

The answer lies in the very structure laid out in the biblical system of governance. Exodus 18:21-22 records Moses’ instructions to appoint judges over groups of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 1:13-16, the people were told to choose wise and understanding men from among themselves, and Moses would set them over the people as judges. This reveals a bottom-up method of judicial selection; one that is merit based, decentralized, and insulated from the king's control.

Judges would be chosen from within their own ranks at each level of authority. The process would work as follows:

1. Judges over tens would be appointed locally, selected by the people under their jurisdiction. These would be the most grassroots-level judges, handling the most immediate disputes.
2. Judges over fifties would be chosen from among the judges of tens, promoted by their peers. Once selected, they would be replaced in their former role by another judge of tens and chosen in the regular manner.
3. Judges over hundreds would be chosen from among the judges over fifties, again through peer selection. This pattern would continue at each level.
4. Judges over thousands would be chosen from among the judges over hundreds, ensuring that only those with demonstrated wisdom and experience would rise to the highest levels of judicial authority.
5. Judges over millions (if the population necessitated it) would be chosen in the same way, following the biblical pattern of increasing the level of authority by roughly a factor of ten. In a nation the size of the United States, there would likely be only three or four such judges, ensuring a manageable and functional judicial hierarchy.

This system ensures that those who rise in judicial authority are not appointed by a king or a political body but by their peers, those who best understand the demands of the position and who can recognize wisdom, justice, and integrity in their colleagues. This method also prevents a central authority from manipulating the judiciary for its own purposes.

Furthermore, this approach ensures accountability. Since each judge at every level is chosen from below, any failure or corruption can be swiftly addressed by the very people who elevated him. A judge who fails to uphold the law will lose the confidence of his fellow judges and can be removed, just as he was appointed.

This is, in every way, a superior alternative to the flawed and corruptible systems of judicial appointment used in modern governments. It remains consistent with biblical precedent, ensures impartiality, and preserves the judiciary’s independence from both the executive and the populace. If a judicial system is to function properly within a constitutional monarchy, it must rest upon the authority of the law itself, not the whims of a ruler or the fickleness of elections. The biblical model provides exactly this kind of foundation.

As for the king's role in seating judges, it should be similar to Moses' role in Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1. Not as the sole appointer but as the final confirmer of the judges selected through the structured process. Moses instructed the people to choose wise and capable men, but he retained the authority to approve their selections. This suggests a model in which the king ensures that the process remains just and that those appointed meet the necessary qualifications.

In practical terms, the king would:

1. Oversee the Process: Ensuring that the selection process is carried out fairly and in accordance with the law.
2. Confirm Appointments: Reviewing the selections to ensure they align with constitutional and biblical principles, much as Moses affirmed the choices presented by the people.
3. Act as a Final Check: If corruption or partisanship taints the selection process, the king could reject unqualified candidates and require a new selection.

The grassroots-level "judges" as you call them are democratically elected, so this is at bottom a democracy. Why don't you just have the judges over 50s or 100s appoint the new judges over 10s when needed? Then you don't need any general elections, and you can avoid this being a democracy.

 

[Clete]

The grassroots-level "judges" as you call them are democratically elected, so this is at bottom a democracy.

Nonsense!

Do you even know what the word democracy means?

Why don't you just have the judges over 50s or 100s appoint the new judges over 10s when needed?

Did you even bother to read the post?

Then you don't need any general elections, and you can avoid this being a democracy.

There would never be anything resembling a general election under such a system.